CPUC Public Agenda 3246
Thursday, December 17, 2009, 9:30 a.m.
505 Van Ness Ave, San Francisco
Commissioners:
Michael R. Peevey
Dian M. Grueneich
John A. Bohn
Rachelle Chong
Timothy Alan Simon
www.cpuc.ca.gov
Public Comment
• Any member of the public who wishes to address the CPUC about
matters before the Commission, must first sign up with the Public
Advisor before the meeting begins.
• Once called, at the discretion of the President of the CPUC, each
speaker has up to 2 minutes.
• A sign will be posted when 1 minute remains.
• A bell will ring when time has expired.
The following items are NOT subject to Public Comment:
Items: 15, 48, 50
All items on the Closed Session Agenda
Agenda Changes
• Items shown on the Consent Agenda will be taken up and voted on as a group in one of
the first items of business of each CPUC meeting.
• Items on Today’s Consent Agenda are: 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 & 57.
• Any Commissioner, with consent of the other Commissioners, may request an item
from the Regular Agenda be moved to the Consent Agenda prior to the meeting.
Items: 59, 65, 66 & 67 from the Regular Agenda have been added to the Consent Agenda.
• Any Commissioner may request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion on the Regular Agenda prior to the meeting. Item: None have been moved to
the Regular Agenda.
• Item: 28 has been withdrawn.
• The following items have been held to future Commission Meetings:
Held to 1/21/10: 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, 40, 61, 62, 69, 70, 71 & 73
Regular Agenda
• Each item on the Regular Agenda (and its alternate if any) will be
introduced by the assigned Commissioner or CPUC staff and
discussed before it is moved for a vote.
• For each agenda item, a summary of the proposed action is included
on the agenda; the CPUC’s decision may, however, differ from that
proposed.
• The complete text of every Proposed Decision or Draft Resolution is
available for download on the CPUC’s website: www.cpuc.ca.gov.
• Late changes to agenda items are available on the Escutia Table.
Regular Agenda – Energy Orders
Item #58 [8987] Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Excess Electricity Under
Assembly Bill 1613
R08-06-024 Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion into
Combined Heat and Power Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1613.
Quasi-Legislative Comr. Peevey/ ALJ Yip-Kikugawa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Adopts the policies and procedures to implement Assembly Bill 1613.
• Determines that customers to be allocated costs and benefits under this program shall include bundled service customers
and customers receiving electric service from electric service providers or community choice aggregators.
• Adopts a 500 megawatt (MW) interim cap on amount of excess electricity to be purchased under the program.
• Determines price for excess electricity shall be based on the costs of a combined cycle gas turbine and comprised of a fixed
and a variable component.
• Includes a 10% location bonus applied to eligible combined heat and power (CHP) located in high-value areas and a pass
through of any greenhouse gas compliance costs.
• Adopts a standard contract to be offered to all eligible CHP up to 20 MW, and a simplified contract to be offered to eligible
combined heat and power systems that export up to 5 MW.
• Adopts Energy Division staff’s proposed changes to the standard and simplified contracts, with some modifications.
ESTIMATED COST:
• Unknown.
• Cost will depend on the actual price of contracts entered into under this program.
Regular Agenda – Energy Orders
Item #60 [8993] Southern California Edison Company's Tehachapi
Renewable Transmission Project
A07-06-031
Ratesetting Comr. Grueneich/ ALJ Kolakowski
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Grants Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Tehachapi
Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) (TRTP).
• Certifies Environmental Impact Report.
• Imposes mitigation measures and conditions.
• Finds overriding considerations for approving the TRTP.
• Closes the proceeding.
ESTIMATED COST:
• $1,522,920,000 construction costs without financing costs.
• $1,784,740,000 (estimated) total cost.
Regular Agenda – Energy Orders
Item #63 [9048] Incentive Earnings for 2006-2008 Energy Efficiency
Savings
R09-01-019 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Examine the
Commission’s Energy Efficiency Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanism.
Ratesetting Comr. Bohn / ALJ Pulsifer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Authorizes Second installment of interim 2006-2008 incentive earnings for energy
efficiency savings achieved by the major electric and gas utilities.
• Authorizes a schedule and process for a final true-up of 2006-2008 incentive payments to
be completed by year-end 2010.
ESTIMATED COST:
• The interim incentive earnings will increase costs to ratepayers in the following amounts
for 2009 and 2010.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company - $14,697,960 and $30,260,440.
• Southern California Edison Company - $9,869,278 and $18,614,227.
• Southern California Gas Company - $1,191,296 and $3,441,467.
Regular Agenda – Energy Orders
Item #63a [9049] ALTERNATE TO ITEM 9048
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• This alternate decision differs from the ALJ's proposed
decision in that it:
• Uses a shared savings rate of 12% for setting the incentive
payments for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego
Gas & Electric Company.
• Based on the higher shared savings rate, increases the 2009
incentive payments to PG&E from $14.7 million to $33.4
million, and to SCE from $9.9 million to $21.4 million.
Regular Agenda – Energy Orders
Item #64 [9052] Policies and Findings to Fulfill Regulatory Obligations
Pursuant to the Energy Information and Security Act of 2007
R08-12-009 Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Smart Grid Technologies
Pursuant to Federal Legislation and On The Commission’s Own Motion to
Actively Guide Policy in California’s Development of a Smart Grid System.
Quasi-Legislative Comr. Chong / ALJ Sullivan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Finds that for Sierra Pacific Power Company, Mountain Utilities, PacifiCorp, and Bear Valley Electric Company,
the adoption of Energy Information and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requirements would be inconsistent with
the purposes of EISA.
• Finds that for San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), adopting EISA requirements pursuant to Smart Grid investment
would be inconsistent with the purposes of EISA.
• Finds that for SDG&E, PG&E, and SCE, prior Commission action makes no further action necessary at this
time.
• Because of these findings, declines to adopt EISA requirements for Investor-Owned Utilities.
• Orders a new phase of this proceeding to determine cost-effective ways of providing access to customer
usage data by the end of 2011 and sets a policy objective of providing price information by the end of 2010.
ESTIMATED COST:
• None.
Regular Agenda – Energy Orders
Item #68 [9103] Residential Electric Rates Revised in Response to Senate
Bill 695
A09-10-013, A09-10-014, A09-10-015 - Related matters. Application of Pacific
Gas and Electric Company for Expedited Authorization to Change
Residential Electric Rates Effective January 1, 2010, as Permitted by Newly
Enacted Public Utilities Code Section 739.9.
Ratesetting Comr. Peevey/ ALJ Pulsifer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Pursuant to AB695 (Stats. 2009, Ch. 337) authorizes increases in Tier 1 and Tier 2
residential electric rates for three applicants.
• Establishes procedure for advice letters for related adjustments in future years.
• Closes the proceeding.
ESTIMATED COST:
• No net cost to residential class as whole but usage cost to individual customers
may vary.
Regular Agenda – Communication Resolutions
and Reports
Item #72 [8892] TracFone Wireless, Inc. Request for Eligible Telecommunication
Carrier Designation
Res T-17235 Advice Letter (AL) 1, filed August 20, 2008; Supplemental AL (SAL)
1A, filed December 16, 2008; SAL 1B, filed March 2, 2009; SAL 1C, filed March 16,
2009; SAL 1D, filed July 24, 2009; and SAL 1E, filed September 16, 2009 - Related
matters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Denies the request of TracFone Wireless, Inc. (TracFone) to be designated as
an Eligible Telecommunication Carrier for the purpose of receiving federal
Lifeline support.
• Directs the Communications Division to prepare an Order Instituting Investigation
and Order to Show Cause why TracFone should not be ordered to pay all
outstanding user fees and surcharges, applicable interest and penalties.
ESTIMATED COST:
• None.
Regular Agenda – Water/ Sewer Orders
Item #74 [9097] New Order Instituting Rulemaking
R___________ Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission’s Own Motion
to Determine Whether Sharing of Customer Information Between Regulated
Water Utilities and Regulated Energy Utilities/Municipal Energy Providers
Should be Required; and if so, to Develop the Rules and Procedures Governing
Such Sharing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
• Opens a rulemaking that explores the sharing of customer information between
water and energy utilities to enhance participation in low-income assistance
programs for regulated water customers, while determining if such sharing should
be required, and to consider and develop the rules and procedures governing the
sharing of customer information, should such sharing be required.
ESTIMATED COST:
• None.
Commissioners’ Reports
Management Reports
The Obama Administration’s Public
Transportation Program Act of 2009
Report of December 8, 2009 Testimony of Richard W. Clark
before the US House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Richard Clark
Consumer Protection and Safety Director
What the Act Proposes
• Requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish and enforce
minimum federal safety standards for rail transit systems not
regulated by the FRA.
• Establish a program whereby a state would be eligible for federal
transit assistance to carry out a federally approved public
transportation safety program.
– States would not be preempted from developing more stringent
standards
– Secretary of Transportation would enforce the federal minimum
standards if a state opts out
– State programs have to be well-staffed and adequately empowered by
state governments in order to receive federal funding
• Ensure that the safety oversight agency is fully financially
independent from the transit systems it oversees
Further Provisions of the Act
• FTA and State participating agencies would be
authorized to conduct inspections, investigations, audits,
and examinations, as well as test public transportation
systems’ equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations
and persons engaged in the business of a public
transportation system, have the authority to issue reports
and subpoenas, require the production of documents,
take depositions, and prescribe recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
Why Change Existing Federal Law?
• The federal government has been statutorily prohibited, since 1965,
from directly imposing safety standards upon Rail Transit Agencies,
and has instead implemented an unfunded mandate that states
have a designated state safety oversight agency.
• Serious accidents are on the rise – in large part due to aging
infrastructure and increased ridership.
• 50 Rail Transit systems with 27 different state regulatory regimes
• Many systems with only one (or less than one) safety oversight staff
• Many safety oversight staff activities are funded by the rail transit
system they are tasked to oversee
Rail Transit Safety in California
• 12 Systems Under CPUC Jurisdiction
– Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
– Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)
– Sacramento Rapid Transit District (SRTD)
– San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority (SFMTA)
– Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
– San Diego Trolley, INC. (SDTI)
– North County Transit District Sprinter
– San Francisco Airport AirTrain
– Port of Los Angeles Red Cars (POLA)
– The Grove at Farmers Market
– Americana on Brand Trolley
– Angels Flight Railway
• 20.5 CPUC Rail Transit Safety Staff
– Safety engineers
– Specialized inspectors
– Analyst
– Strength based teams with freight rail, inter-city rail, commuter rail and rail crossings
safety staff (such as the accident review committee)
Questions or Comments?
The CPUC Thanks You
For Attending Today’s Meeting
The Public Meeting is adjourned.
The next Public Meeting will be:
January 21, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.